MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971803913 · doi:10.1353/can.2013.0003

Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930 by Dan Azoulay (review)

2013· article· en· W1971803913 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Dale Barbour

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceCourtshipHistoryEliteSociologyArt historyLiteratureLawArtPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930 by Dan Azoulay Dale Barbour Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930. Dan Azoulay. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2011. Pp. 300. $34.95 Canadians had plenty to say about their quest for love and marriage at the beginning of the twentieth century. The challenge is finding their words. Dan Azoulay offers us a window into love in his new book, Hearts and Minds: Canadian Romance at the Dawn of the Modern Era, 1900–1930. Tapping over twenty thousand letters to correspondence columns in Montreal’s Family Herald and Weekly Star and Winnipeg’s Western Home Monthly, a range of archival sources, and pictures, Azoulay details the criteria men and women used to select their mates, how they struggled with the dos and don’ts of romance and courtship, and how the First World War shook up their world. He rounds his discussion off by looking at how concepts of romance, already in flux at the beginning of the war thanks to urbanization and industrialization, turned from courtship and marriage to dating and companionship in the 1920s. Azoulay correctly critiques previous histories of romance for being focused on the views and perspectives of the cultural elite and giving short shrift to the experiences of the working class (8). Fortunately the correspondence column letters allow men and women from a wide range of work and class backgrounds to speak and argue in their own words about what romance meant to them. The result doesn’t upend previous discussions on romance – the whims of the elite are echoed in these letters and the patterns remain the same – but it does complicate them. Yes, “proper” behaviour still mattered and women and men were expected to – and Azoulay argues, for the [End Page 149] most part, did – follow a complex set of etiquette rules for romance. But practical matters were also considered; men sought potential wives who could cook and clean but also might be “cultured companions” (39). Appearance, while not ignored, was far down the list of attributes that men sought in women, a reminder that notions of beauty are culturally constructed (40). Women wanted men who were morally upright, fit, race-minded, and socially conscious, but they also demanded that their mates be kind and considerate, and if not handsome then at least neat and clean (89). Gender was also being policed as men and women searched for love prior to the First World War. Suffragettes were eyed with suspicion by male suitors and even some women, as were working women, suggesting how women faced pressure across different class bases as they extended their political and economic reach in the twentieth century (49). The historical record and even a casual glance at popular culture after the war tell us that the rules of courtship were changing. But Azoulay adds to that portrait by drawing from sources that make clear that the old laundry list of requirements for future mates had been simplified. Appropriately, Azoulay adds a visual component to his book by using archival photographs from across Canada. While some do little to move the narrative along, others provide a sense of how men and women carried themselves when together in the early twentieth century. The sexes literally drew closer to one another as the years passed (107, 232). This book is accessible to a general readership. The prose is easy to follow. The theoretical discussions are clear and succinctly explained and, from the perspective of non-academic readers, blissfully short. Academic readers may find the theoretical brevity frustrating and may yearn for more discussion on the changing concepts of masculinity and femininity and fewer poems from letter writers. They can find some solace in the footnotes, where Azoulay leads a more nuanced discussion of some historians, like Peter Ward, who have grappled with questions of romance and agrees with them or pokes holes in their arguments in equal measure. Similarly, the percentage of letters that comes from each source is spelled out in detail, thus providing a clear sense that region mattered when pouring out one’s hopes...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207